Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Saddleback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Rich
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
Since we have already had comments on the Saddleback event under the HRC thread, I think it's time to give it its own thread.
Clearly Obama tried to spin his positions to mollify his audience. However, I think that by making a point of reminding them where he differs, he managed to avoid pandering. For example, I am not terribly happy with his view on marriage, but favoring civil unions at least keeps him from being an enemy of gays (IMHO). And, while it would certainly have been gutsier to say that fetuses are not people when they have 2, 16, or a few hundred cells, I think the "pay grade" comment was actually a reasonable (if too cute) way of saying that drawing the line is a complex question that neither theologians nor scientists are likely to agree on among themselves, let alone with each other. McCain, on the other hand, was 100% with his audience -- no hesitation, no nuance. On the Supreme Court question, Obama again gave a more complex answer, naming different factors about Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts that give him pause, whereas McCain just named the four "liberal" justices and said he would not appoint anything but "strict-constructionists". Given that his "strict constructionists" recently reconstructed the meaning of the second amendment, I hope we can all accept that "strict construction" is, at least in part, a euphemism for construing the Constitution strictly the same way he does. I don't mean to say Obama won. My point is that we got a good chance to see two very different approaches. On the one hand (McCain), the morally certain, "I know what's right and that's what I'll do" approach, and on the other (Obama), the nuanced, "I have to work out the details on this" approach. I think these approaches are independent of political leaning, and while they could be characterized as McCain = Reagan, Obama = Carter, you could also perhaps say McCain = G W Bush, Obama = G H W Bush. Personally I am more comfortable with the nuanced approach, but I'm not sure I would feel the same if the nuanced one were the conservative and the shoot-from-the-hip guy the liberal. |
Anonymous
| I'm the poster who mentioned the "pay grade" response on the other thread. I agree that it's a highly complex issue, Rich. It's also an emotional one for many people, and Obama's response struck me as too flip and his follow up as dismissive. I think it would have been better to simply say, "I don't know the answer to that" if that is indeed what he meant. |
Anonymous
I am obviously not a mind reader, but I don't think Obama was saying he didn't know the answer. I thought he was saying it is a question that is too complex to deal with in a 30 second blurb. |
Anonymous
| 19:29. Then he should have simply said that. |
Anonymous
|
My question about Saddleback is whether it should have happened at all. I think the answer is no. Kathleen Parker has an excellent piece on this that says, among other things, "This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we're not applying a religious test when we're really applying a religious test." Are we only a Christian nation? Is it really appropriate to apply a Christianity litmus test for the presidency? No.
Parker writes,
I think the separation of church and state is rather important. Democrats are usually outraged when theology makes it way onto the bench, as in the case of Antonin Scalia, or when it makes its way into the White House. I'm surprised no one here seems to agree with Parker that ". . . setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong." Kathleen Parker's full piece is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/200...driven_politics.html |
Rich
Member Offline
Member Offline
I agree on the importance of separation of Church and State. However, for a candidate to give any group of voters, be they a union, a veterans's group, a synagogue, mosque, or church, the respect of an appearance does not bother me. If Lieberman were running, I don't think he would have hesitated to go into that same setting and explain his beliefs as a Jew. And I hope that an agnostic or atheist would have been invited and treated with respect if one of us were running. I wish I were running so I could play the godless card! 
|
Anonymous
I agree that it is important to give any group the respect of an appearance, and of course agree with your comments about Jews and the godless.  However, I think a "godless" person would have been rather uncomfortable during the Saddleback questioning, and I'm afraid events such as these, with the star power of Rick Warren (and my MIL is an evangelical so I know more than I'd like to about his star power! ugh) make it ever more unlikely that an atheist or similarly "godless" person could be elected president. Jews and Muslims also need not apply right now. Romney even learned that a huge number of "real Christians" find Mormons to be cultlike and scary. Sorry, Rich, but I think you will need to find Jesus before you run! 
|
Anonymous
| Me again. I just want to add that I do think it's important for Democrats to be able to engage comfortably with faith. It's something we have struggled with, to our detriment. I'm a social justice type of Christian myself. I'd just like to see a middle ground, where we cede nothing to the Republicans in terms of owning religious voters, but where we also don't assume that a particular faith is the only acceptable one. Sorry to be long winded. |